Syndication

Monday, January 23, 2006

Pete McCloskey's Candidacy

As promised, I attended Pete McCloskey’s announcement speech in Lodi. I was impressed with the event itself, and with McCloskey himself. He has a personal charisma and a pugnacious spirit that will surely make the Republican primary an interesting race to watch. Furthermore, there is so much readily apparent narrative drama (which McCloskey plays to) that there is a virtual certainty that the media will eat up McCloskey’s candidacy with a spoon. But as enthusiastic as I am about McCloskey running (I am aware that there is no downside to his candidacy from an anti-Pombo perspective), I have to say that I don’t feel like I have joined the McCloskey bandwagon. At the very least, I have to say that I left Lodi unconvinced that McCloskey has a better shot to unseat Pombo in the primary than the Democrats have in the general. Maybe this is foolish of me, and I am certainly open to changing my opinion as his campaign develops. But it is where I’m at right now.

Before I begin to explain what happened in greater depth, let me make a confession. I’m sorry to report that I got to the event a bit late due to unexpected traffic delays (I was in the car for an hour and twenty minutes driving from Walnut Creek), although I still was able to hear the tail end of the press conference. Afterwards, I hung around for awhile to get a feel for what was said, and during that time I was able to speak with McCloskey himself for a bit. So it wasn’t a complete loss. But it was frustrating.

When I arrived at the press conference, the first thing I noticed was that there were cameramen from at least four television news stations in the room. There were also quite a number of other reporters. All in all, I’d say that half of the people in the room were reporters or their cameramen, which did not surprise me that much. I think it’s likely that this race will continue to capture significant media attention. This is especially true if McCloskey continues to give them the good quotes (e.g. “Congressmen are like diapers; they need to be changed, and for the same reason.”); if he plays up the straight-talking, maverick Republican angle (it meshes well with his status as a decorated combat vet); and if he is able to criticize Pombo in a way that will come across as principled critiques of a person (and a party) gone astray, as opposed to political cheap-shots. It also doesn’t hurt that McCloskey has a flair for the dramatic.

You see, the second thing I saw upon entering the room in which the press conference was held was a bowl of oranges. McCloskey, for those who don’t already know, has an orange (and IIRC olive) farm about twenty miles away from Lodi. In any event, the oranges were from McCloskey’s farm, a farm that he was very reluctant to leave. (UPDATE 1/24: YOU CAN SEE WHY I MEAN BY WATCHING A VIDEO HERE).

The point was very clear, and very clearly emphasized. McCloskey has been a lot of things, an environmental lawyer, a United States Marine, and a Congressman. But right now, he’s a farmer, and therefore he identifies with, and understands, the farmers of Lodi and San Joaquin County. His oranges, at the very least, lend him a bit of authenticity given the fact that he’s moving into the district to run against Pombo.

Furthermore, McCloskey metaphorically beat his swords into plowshares and was quite literally enjoying the fruits of his retirement before this race against Pombo. And so in a way, the oranges served to ennoble McCloskey. He’s saddling up one last time to take on the upstart black knight who has begun to wage war on Sir McCloskey’s hard-earned victories. He’s not sure if he’ll win or lose, but he’s setting out to fight the good fight. Or so the story goes.

Substantively, McCloskey seemed to want to focus largely on the issue of ethics, corruption, a balanced budget, and the environment. On his website he writes:

I run, in part, because I believe the key question of the Republican Party today is whether we go back to historic Republican principles of integrity, fiscal responsibility, limited government and environmental balance, or do we go the way of the DeLay Republicans, (1) with no ethics enforcement, (2) an understandable public perception that Republicans give undue preference to big-money contributors, (3) a huge and ever-growing bureaucracy, and (4) a constant erosion of the environmental protections for community health, and park and wilderness lands that have been established over 30 years.

He is also unabashedly for the Murtha position on Iraq, although he seems not to be making too much of an issue about Iraq in this campaign.

When I was speaking to him I tried to raise the issue of naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps (something I thought he might have a special interest in given his service in the Marines), but he quickly returned the conversation to the above topics. At first I got the feeling that he had decided what he wanted to talk about and that he wanted to stay on message, but after about a minute I wasn’t so sure because he proceeded to tell a story that was definitely off message (not to mention off color). It reminded me of something a friend of mine had written to me the other day, something that I think is worth considering. She said:

As far as McCloskey goes, I'll be curious to see how this all plays out. I have a recollection of McCloskey from his time in office as someone who was never very popular in any circle. That same blunt, outspoken quality that is so endearing and suggestive of integrity can very easily start to feel like a kind of crackpot cantankerousness. Think back to what he said at the Defenders meeting, when he called Pombo a crook and himself an old bastard. Now, that stuff was pretty amusing because we were predisposed to those kinds of lines. And we all knew we'd never hear Jerry [McNerney] or Filson talk that way. But at the same time we realized that NOT talking that way was the more prudent, responsible and Congressional approach. And that's part of the conundrum. McCloskey seems to be lacking certain internal check mechanisms.

I have to say that I have some sympathy for this concern. I can certainly tell you that for all of McCloskey’s personal charisma, he ended the conversation with me not by saying “Bye” or thanking me for coming or excusing himself at all. Instead, he simply turned around and walked away. It was very odd, and I’m not sure I’ve ever had a response like that from anyone, let alone a politician.

I could also see that lack of what my friend called “internal check mechanisms” spilling out in other ways. How else, do you explain this (from the Contra Costa Times):

In the past two decades, he [McCloskey] has become a critic of pro-Israeli U.S. policies and visited the late Palestinian leader, Yassar Arafat.

He adamantly denies that he is anti-Semitic. But he fueled the allegations in 2000 after he spoke to the Institute for Historical Review, whose members either deny or contest the details of the Holocaust. A speech transcript shows that McCloskey said, "I don't know whether you are right or wrong about the Holocaust ... "

The group cites McCloskey as one of its supporters on its Web site and fund-raising letters.

On Wednesday, McCloskey called the group a "bunch of nuts" and said the transcript was inaccurate. He recalled "being booed" when he talked about the Holocaust.

"Of course the Holocaust existed," he said. "But I will go and speak to any group."Meanwhile, his campaign chairman, Lewis Butler, said he would demand the organization stop using McCloskey's name.

Now I spoke to a longtime friend of McCloskey’s who denied that he’d ever seen any evidence of anti-Semitism in him, and for my part I find it difficult to believe that McCloskey is actually a Holocaust denier, if for no other reason than he seems very moderate and, let’s face it, denying the Holocaust is a very extremist position.

But even if he completely repudiates the views of the IHR, it was still a mistake for McCloskey to associate himself with them in any way. Like DavidNYC of Swing State Project, I find McCloskey’s excuse that he will speak to anyone a bit lame. And it is these types of concern writ large that first caused my enthusiasm for McCloskey to wane a bit.

Still, I think the biggest reason why I am not totally gung-ho about McCloskey is the simple fact that I did not meet a single Republican from the district at the press conference. I know that there are some Republicans that will support McCloskey, including Mark Connolly from Tracy. But most of the people at the press conference were either part of McCloskey’s campaign, friends of McCloskey from out of the district, or reporters. I met a friend of a McCloskey campaigner (both of whom were from outside the district), an ex-Presbyterian minister from Davis (who was not a Republican), two McNerney supporters from Lodi who are both on the San Joaquin County Democratic Central Committee, and a man whose granddaughter dated someone in McCloskey’s family (and in any event the gentleman was in California on a vacation and drove to Lodi from Marin County to see McCloskey’s speech). I admit, there very well might have been a number of Republicans in attendance from the district. But I was disappointed that his announcement did not engender more interest from local Republicans.

I know that this is all fairly intellectualized, but there is something I realized when I was coming home on BART. I kind of had a gut check. When I was talking to McCloskey he told me that the best way a Democrat could show their support for him would be to register as a Republican and help him win the primary, just as a bunch of Stanford students had done in order to help him win his first Congressional campaign against Shirley Temple Black. The bottom line is that I wouldn’t do that, and I wouldn’t ask or encourage anyone else to do that. If I thought it would make a difference, I would feel differently.

I know I have heard a number of people say it will be easier to take Pombo out in the primary with McCloskey than in the general with Steve Filson, Jerry McNerney, or Steve Thomas. I kind of want to believe them. But I’m just not feeling it. And I wonder if some of the convention wisdom about McCloskey winning the primary might not result from a certain kind of confusion between two scenarios.

It seems like a lot of people feel that McCloskey is a better candidate than any of the Democrats in the race, and take that to mean that that McCloskey has a better shot at beating Pombo in the primary than the Democrats have a shot at beating Pombo in the general election. But even if it is granted that McCloskey is a better candidate, it only implies that McCloskey would be more able to win a general election against Pombo than the other Democrats, not that he has a better shot of winning the Republican primary than the Democrats have a shot at winning the general. Of course, the latter scenario might still be true. Anyhow, it’s something to consider.

Matt, although we won't always agree, we agree that Pombo has been a terrible representative for the 11th Congressional District.

In that vein, I sent this question into the Contra Costa Times Pombo Forum. I post on your site for everyone to enjoy.

Here is what I wrote:

First let me say that I found your articles interesting, however there was a glaring omission. It seems you may have forgotten to include the charge that in 1999, Congressman Pombo introduced a pesticide regulation bill (Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999) that seems to have been written, wholly or in part, by lobbyists for the pesticide industry, a clear violation of House Ethics rules. The Washington Post ran a piece on this issue and has documentation that appears to demostrate the bill to be a word for word copy of a consulting firm proposal given to Pombo's staff. Why did you fail to note this in your report?

In addition, I have not seen anyone, including the Contra Costa Times, explore the possibility that the bill may have been part of a deal Congressman Pombo struck with Congressman Delay for the chance to Chair the House Resources Committee (Delay was in the pesticide business before he was elected to Congress and the industry is a significant contributor to both Delay and Pombo). As you have noted, Pombo leapfrogged two more senior members to win the Chair, although no reasonable explanation has been given for this dramatic promotion. Because of the lack of support for the Ethics Committee we may never have closure on this matter.

The Pombo/McCloskey art looks great on your site! I'm proud to be part of it! And if the Art Department sobers up any time soon, I'll tell them to go have a look too! I did an update on my latest Pombo report with a link to your first-hand account which is stupendous. THANKS!!

Curious to get your opinion on the various Pombo pieces in the CC Times on Sunday. Overall, I thought they were fair but I sent Lisa V and Jessica G a note saying I wished they had commented on the complete lack of ethics review in the House. In my opinion, I think they overlooked this piece of the puzzle which is necessary when reading stuff like:

"The congressman correctly states that he has never been found guilty of violating House ethics rules or charged with breaking the law."

or

"A Contra Costa Times investigation of ethical charges leveled at Pombo reveals a more complicated portrait of a singularly dogmatic and calculating lawmaker who stretches the rules but stops short of breaking them."

Matt - you should add the CBS13 link to your primary blog post, so people can get a visual feel for McCloskey.

Good work, by the way. One thing I appreciate about your blog is that it's never predictable. What you're saying now about McCloskey is likely to become conventional wisdom a few weeks or months from now.

He'll suck up all the anti-Pombo coverage in the media. The guy is considered newsworthy. The various Democrats will have a hard time introducing themselves in the district while McCloskey gets the airtime.

Having McCloskey in means that Pombo gets AIPAC support, money, big time. (He may have already.) McCloskey long ago touched one of the third rails of U.S. politics, questioning uncritical U.S. support for Israel and suggesting that Palestinians had legit greivances. AIPAC will do anything to defeat him. You are already seeing that as someone has put about that he is Holocaust denier. I'm sure he is not, but he breaks one of the real rules of DC survival here.

The people in the district will very likely be mystified by the fuss and furor generated by having such a high profile (in a media sense) outsider running around. I'm afraid this helps Pombo in the end. First he gets to play local hero fighting off the nutcase carpetbagger, then he just labels the Dem candidate (who will have a hard time becoming audible to define himself) as more of the same. The latter will be utterly false -- and hard to fight.

The Democrats have a chance in this race if we can make the issue Pombo -- and field a challenger who inspires belief that he stands for something different. it is pretty uphill and I doubt McCloskey will help much.

On the other hand, as you note Matt, maybe while McCloskey gets all the coverage, both the local Reps and Dems can treat him as irrelevant? Quite a picture of a Rep press conference with no Reps.

As a lifelong Republican now living in Stockton, I stumbled onto your blog today and I really disagree with your perspective. I was there at the McCloskey thing too and for the entire event. Not just the latter part of it like you. I found Mr. McCloskey to be an intriguing candidate, especially for someone like me that is fed up with Mr. Pombo. Truth in disclosure: Mr. McCloskey was my Congressman from San Mateo many years back, and a damn good one too.

First of all, no one is asking you to join the McCloskey bandwagon as you called it. Or the Republican Party. At the end of the primaries, you can back whichever candidate you want - or none at all since you don't even live in this area from what I understand. What you write is the kind of intellectual-sounding crap we've come to expect from Bay Area outsiders. The more you write, the more you piss off the people here and the more you're going to help Pombo win.

Yeah, there sure were many cameramen and other reporters there. I even commented on this to someone from the McCloskey campaign afterwards, and they said it was because the event was planned primarily as a media event. You procede to compliment Mr. McCloskey's straight talk, his colorful quotes, his charisma, his bio (a decorated Marine vet and a farmer) and several other things too. Have you ever served your country with even a fraction of the dedication or distinction this man has? I doubt it.

You then go on to praise his substantive positions on issues. In fact, he spells out in clear language on his website more unambiguous positions on issues than all of the other candidates combined, including Mr. Pombo. I find that refreshing. No spin, BS, or doubletalk - like you. But then you turn around and fault him for not making too much of his Iraq views. But the fact is, he talked at length about this in response to a reporter's question and was clear and unambiguous in his response that he favors the Murtha position. So what's your problem? How much clearer could it have been? What part of "phased withdrawal as suggested by Mr. Murtha" do you not understand? I don't hear Iraq being raised as a central issue by any of the other candidates, nor even raised at all by some. What is your beef?

Then you raise the old anti-semitism argument, but fail to add any clarification or original content. Yes, Mr. McCloskey visited with Yasser Arafat in Tunis. I believe it was in 1990. Mr. McCloskey convinced Mr. Arafat to accept UN Resolution 242 during these talks. This was the key resolution that called for a two-state "solution": mutual recognition by BOTH Palistinian and Israeli leaders that each state had a right to exist. Mr. McCloskey not only convinced Arafat to accept Israel's existence for the first time, but he also persuaded Mr. Arafat to enter into peace talks with Israel.

Mr. McCloskey came back to the US and informed John Sununu on Reagan's staff that Mr. Arafat was ready to recognize Israel's right to exist and that he was prepared to enter into peace talks with Israel. Of course, Mr. McCloskey was smart enough to approach Mr. Sununu because he was a Palistinian-American. Someone like you would have babbled on your blog that he was dumb to go visit Arafat and probably approached the "wrong" person in Reagan's cabinet and the word might never have gotten to Reagan that Arafat was ready to talk.

The rest is history - Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin appearing at Camp David with Mr. Clinton, and both received the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps Mr. McCloskey should have gotten in on that Nobel too, but I'll let history be the judge. That you mention Mr. McCloskey visited with Mr. Arafat in a dark anti-semitic context is insulting to Mr. McCloskey's role as the peacemaker. Yes, it is true that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the time raised holy hell and charged him with anti-semitism just because he had the gall to even engage Mr. Arafat (the terrorist) in dialog. No one criticizes Mr. Nixon for entering into a dialog with Mao, or virtually every western leader for their "complex" relationships with Mr. Stalin the Butcher.

And I can't comment on the specific quote you cite from the Institute for Historical Review, except to say that don't you find it suspicious that we're only getting a small snippet taken out of context? What was the question? What came before and after? I could probably make you look very bad by pulling a few snippets here and there out of context from your postings - how would you like that if you were a public figure? If there was truly something anti-semitic about McCloskey, considering all the years he's been in public service, don't you think there would be more evidence? Especially since he tends to speak his mind so freely, which of course you find fault with as well.

However by repeating this quote in the manner you do and darkly coloring the visit with Mr. Arafat out of your own ignorance and laziness you are slandering or at least insinuating Mr. McCloskey is anti-semitic even if you do come back later and say you don't think its true. Want proof?

The poster "downwithtyranny" takes what you wrote and rebroadcasts it on his blog saying he learned about Mr. McCloskey being anti-semitic from you. And then he denounces Mr. McCloskey for being anti-semitic himself. This is how garbage like this gains credibility, detroying the reputation of good honorable men (yeah, like your Kerry even if he is a liberal he served his country honorably). It also works right into Pombo's hands, the guy you supposedly want to say no to. Yet your garbage writing and laziness does Pombo's dirty work for him.

Then you have the gall to pass judgement on Mr. McCloskey meeting with Arafat by saying you find his "I'll talk to anyone" claim to be lame - well piss on you and the other idiot in NYC. Fact is, he's done more to bring peace to one of the most troubled parts of the world than you ever will, no matter how often you go to your silly little peace rallies in Berkeley. And he did more to end the war in Vietnam than you ever did either.

Also there were many Republicans at the rally, but it sounds like you spent all your time talking to Democrats and people you already knew. Too bad - I'm a Republican and I was there, I talked to many Republicans afterwards, and in fact, I didn't run into a single Democrat there. I'm sure someone came from Pombo's camp as well. Did you meet him or her? Probably not, as they probably would not want to talk to a guy like you, pretending to be a reporter while you write such biased garbage slandering the reputation of an honorable man doing honorable things which you find "lame" out of your own ignorance. The fact is, few men are brave enough to take on an incumbent in either party - that goes for Democrats too. You guys are truly pathetic.

I personally overheard two local Republicans invite Mr. McCloskey to address their group, and I'm sure he'll take them up on it. There may have been more for all I know, but the fact is, you saw what you saw based on your blue-tinted glasses. Also I mentioned earlier that I was told the event was supposed to be more of a media event designed to make a splash, not a "Meet the Local Republicans" event. The same McCloskey worker I talked to told me Mr. McCloskey prefers to meet locals in small groups, not in the presence of media so that discussions will be more frank and open. You fault him for not successfully executing two mutually incompatible events at the same time, which to me says perhaps McCloskey knows alot more about how to run a campaign than you do. The proof is in the coverage - which he got in spades, and frankly which you (and some of your ignorant liberal commenters) seem to be more than just a little bit jealous about.

And if McCloskey has enough charisma to make some Democrats want to change parties, so what? That's great in my opinion, as the party you so clearly favor is devoid of ideas and leadership. Oh yeah - ethics too.

Your closing comments were all doubletalk - then again, but of course, however, might still be true, might not, heretofore, something to consider, yes-no-or-maybe-take-your-pick, blah blah blah.

You owe Mr. McCloskey an apology in my opinion. Are you a big enough man to do so, or are you the typical closed-minded Bay Area bigot?

It must be nice to read twenty percent of an article, understand less, get worked up, and write a screed that has little bearing on what was actually said. Nothing like a mad-dog frenzy to get the blood flowing in the AM, eh? Normally I'd treat such a comment as trolling, but you raised some substantive points and I'll address them just in case I wasn't clear initially.

First, you are factually wrong that nobody has asked me to join the McCloskey bandwagon. And how you would presume to know what I was asked is beyond me, especially because you just came upon my blog. Second, you are wrong that nobody has asked me to join the Republican Party. Pete McCloskey himself directly told me that the best thing Democrats can do to help him is re-register as Republicans. In fact, he didn't phrase it abstractly. He said something like, "The best thing you can do to help me is to register as a Republican and come help me..." Furthermore, I know someone supporting McCloskey's campaign who is moving to the district and re-registering as a Republican. If I were convinced that McCloskey could beat Pombo, I might consider doing the same.

Second, you got mighty worked up about my inclusion of a quote from the Contra Costa Times. If you don't like what they wrote, take it up with them, not me. For my part, I am not hawkish on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I hardly think meeting with Arafat makes one an anti-Semite. But the point was that he spoke to the IHR, who are a bunch of anti-Semites, and that they used McCloskey to promote their views. By speaking at one of their events McCloskey demonstrated, at the very least, poor judgement. And I still find his excuse about attending the IHR event lame.

Third, I think it's funny that you are so worked up that you insult me for praising McCloskey. What do I need to do, write lyrical poetry praising his many virtues?

Fourth, for the record, my aim was not to take issue with McCloskey's pro-Murtha position on the war but to express my impression that McCloskey seemed unlikely to make it a big campaign issue against Pombo. I was expecting McCloskey to make more of an issue about the war and so it surprised me. That's the point.

Fifth, I'm glad that a Republican like yourself attended the meeting. I wish I had met you. But I saw all of the people at the event who were either reporters or who were connected to McCloskey's campaign or to McCloskey personally. There just weren't that many other people there. I spoke to at least ten non-reporters, which certainly was more than a quarter, and probably more like a third, of the people in attendance, including all of the McCloskey Campaign people. I allowed that there were probably a few local Republicans like yourself. My point was that there was not a spontaneous crowd of interested Republicans who were fed up with Pombo. I didn't think the McCloskey Campaign failed in any way organizing the event, but I do think it shows something about the Republican willingness to buck Pombo.

You still owe the man an apology, but as I expected you are not man enough to do so. You are as pathetic as I thought. Deny that it is your words that are now being used to accuse McCloskey of being anti-semitic on the blogs of your liberal buddies.

Suppose in talking to IHR Mr. McCloskey could have gotten them to accept the reality of the Holocaust - what would you say about Mr. McCloskey then? That he is/was foolish to have met with them? It is exactly the same in my view as meeting with Arafat. High risk but high reward. But you liberals, especially in the Bay Area, only talk to yourselves and that's part of your problem, not McCloskey's. Get out of the Bay Area and see the Real World. On second thought, don't. Stay there please as we don't want you here.

Its you outsiders with no understanding of the way things work here meddling in this race that will throw it once again to Pombo. Thanks. Why don't you rename your site Say Yes to Pombo?

Go out and get a job. Or grow up - you sound like a young punk.

And I may be old and McCloskey is no spring chicken, but calling us trolls is rude. Like I said, go out and get a job.

Things are getting out of hand here with Matt vs. Anon, but maybe that is just part of the debate, though of course is much better to leave out the personal attacks.

As much as I might want to dismiss Anon, I have seen this sentiment in the San Joaquin Blog. I sent around a posting from that Blog to the VPO group yesterday. Here is a quote from "AceKing", who seems similar to what Anon is saying, though AceKing is clearly a Pombo supporter and not for McCloskey. These words are inflammatory and offensive, but it is important to consider what the meaning and motivation is behind them, and how that impacts the attitudes toward the race in the Central Valley:

"Rather than reading silly remarks about Richard Pombo and who he knows and who might know him, I would like to see ONE post dedicated to how any of the challengers would make Valley residents better off than they are now.

Hmmm...does it make sense to believe that those running for office who choose to attend Defenders of Wildlife rallies REALLY have the interests of the Valley's economic engine at heart? Will these type of candidates figure out how to balance species recovery with economic vitality (um, no they won't).

So I hope the mouthpiece blogs for the Bay Area Bunglers figure out that the daily chronology of tread-worn, spoon-fed liberal nonsense is useless to Valley residents. On second thought, maybe its better if they don't."

Oh yeah, Anon. wrote: "The poster 'downwithtyranny' takes what you wrote and rebroadcasts it on his blog saying he learned about Mr. McCloskey being anti-semitic from you. And then he denounces Mr. McCloskey for being anti-semitic himself."

This is complete and utter bullshit. DWT didn't make an issue of McCloskey's alleged anti-semitism on the DWT blog at all. There is not word one about it.

In fact, look at what DWT did say: "Our pal Matt from SAY NO TO POMBO has a great first-hand blow-by-blow of the McCloskey press conference in Lodi today-- plus his brilliant and incisive analysis. If you're not sure you want to read it, see if this McCloskey quote gets to you: 'Congressmen are like diapers; they need to be changed, and for the same reason.' Here's the full report [linking to this post]."